If they dropped the number of megapixels down to 5 or 6, they could have SUPERIOR ISO performance to the 1DX... but we can all guess how likely that is With the same level of technology FF will always have 1 1/3 stops advantage over APS-C. Keep in mind the marketing people talk about Jpeg images.... I have no problems that an out-of-camera Jpeg from a brand new design with newer algorithms and more computing power (7D2) will get close to that of an older design, like a 2 year old 1DX (and it will be two years old or more by the time a 7D2 is released). BUT!!!! Take the RAW image from the 1DX and process it like the 7D2 RAW image, and your stop or so FF advantage is back. Even if they came out with great advances in technology that moved the 7D2 to 1 stop (or the almost impossible 2/3 stop) away from the 1DX, by the time the 1DX2 comes out, that same technology would restore the 1 1/3 stop advantage of FF, or if more advances have been made, make the gap wider.

And as far as shutter count life goes, don't forget that an APS-C shutter is smaller and lighter than a FF shutter. If all else was equal, it should be faster and last longer than an equivalently built FF shutter..... so yes, I CAN believe an 7D shutter that lasts as long as a 1DX shutter.

Weatherproofing? The only competition the 7D has in the Canon lineup is the 1DX, so having a 7D2 come close to a 1DX is reasonable.

FPS? The 60D and the 5D2 came out around the same time.... guess which one had more FPS? Heck, the 60D at 5.9 is almost as good as a 5D3 at 6.0....

So I just hope, Canon keep the MPs of their 5Ds in the 22 MP range or might they switch to 24 MP with the next body? Looking forward to 25kish ISO 51200, or 12.8 to 16kish ISO 51.200 in the 5DV

@tnargs: not pickle peepin at all, mate. as it is clear that less megapickels are crucial for high ISO IQ. look at my flickr and you know what I mean. That's among others a certain factor which puts the 1Dx above the 5DIII in high ISO IQ.

True, however aliasing in all its forms is not always a severe issue. Color moire, on the other hand, and moire in general, is a pretty severe problem with no real easy post-processing solution outside of manual correction on a per-instance basis...and even then, the solutions are not great. To take one of your own examples, the photo of the girl with a Foveon...I thought that photo was crisply sharp. It was aliased in a couple places, however it where aliasing occurred, it did not look any significantly worse than the kind of aliasing you get with the D800 in similar circumstances. A photo of a bird with moire, or a photo of a person with moire in the fabric of their clothing, etc. are pretty horrible problems that cannot really be fixed.

True, however aliasing in all its forms is not always a severe issue. Color moire, on the other hand, and moire in general, is a pretty severe problem with no real easy post-processing solution outside of manual correction on a per-instance basis...and even then, the solutions are not great. To take one of your own examples, the photo of the girl with a Foveon...I thought that photo was crisply sharp. It was aliased in a couple places, however it where aliasing occurred, it did not look any significantly worse than the kind of aliasing you get with the D800 in similar circumstances. A photo of a bird with moire, or a photo of a person with moire in the fabric of their clothing, etc. are pretty horrible problems that cannot really be fixed.

Aliasing cannot "be fixed", moire or not (it is a theorem). For example, the Sigma photo I posted is ruined. Who likes what is a matter of personal preference. Some like aliased images, some do not. But when you don't, you cannot "fix" them.

Aliasing cannot "be fixed", moire or not (it is a theorem). For example, the Sigma photo I posted is ruined. Who likes what is a matter of personal preference. Some like aliased images, some do not. But when you don't, you cannot "fix" them.

True, however aliasing in all its forms is not always a severe issue. Color moire, on the other hand, and moire in general, is a pretty severe problem with no real easy post-processing solution outside of manual correction on a per-instance basis...and even then, the solutions are not great. To take one of your own examples, the photo of the girl with a Foveon...I thought that photo was crisply sharp. It was aliased in a couple places, however it where aliasing occurred, it did not look any significantly worse than the kind of aliasing you get with the D800 in similar circumstances. A photo of a bird with moire, or a photo of a person with moire in the fabric of their clothing, etc. are pretty horrible problems that cannot really be fixed.

Aliasing cannot "be fixed", moire or not (it is a theorem). For example, the Sigma photo I posted is ruined. Who likes what is a matter of personal preference. Some like aliased images, some do not. But when you don't, you cannot "fix" them.

@tnargs: not pickle peepin at all, mate. as it is clear that less megapickels are crucial for high ISO IQ. look at my flickr and you know what I mean. That's among others a certain factor which puts the 1Dx above the 5DIII in high ISO IQ.

O please start to study the subject, less pixel are not good for anything, you are spreading a MYTHmore pixels are newer wrong, it is only a good thing

and regarding 1dx and 5dmk3, its more about the gain stage

The gain used is determined by the bit depth and native full well capacity of the pixel. The 1D X, quite literally and factually, has a higher FWC of around 90,000e- BECAUSE it has large pixels. If you compare an 18mp APS-C with the 18mp FF 1D X sensor, for identically framed shots (or to use Pi's very accurate term, "equivalent" shots), the 1D X will trounce the 18mp APS-C sensor. Doesn't matter who makes it, on an equivalent basis, for identical detail, the 1D X will have several stops less noise.

Conversely, in a focal length limited scenario, the APS-C will indeed capture more detail than the 1D X. At identical subject distances, crop the 1D X and downscale the APS-C to the same image dimensions, and the APS-C will have more, sharper detail. One could also use a higher resolution FF sensor and crop to achieve reach. All of these are different usage scenarios.

So it is not a myth. It depends on what your goals are. In reach-limited scenarios, higher pixel density is definitely important. One could also use a high density FF sensor and downscale it to the same image dimensions as the 1D X, and get sharper results with less noise (although not necessarily as low as the 1D X). It all depends on your goals, though. If you need to print large, it is unlikely you are going to downscale your FF image such that it has the same noise as the 1D X...so the argument that a high resolution sensor is no different than a low resolution sensor is just as much a "myth".

True, however aliasing in all its forms is not always a severe issue. Color moire, on the other hand, and moire in general, is a pretty severe problem with no real easy post-processing solution outside of manual correction on a per-instance basis...and even then, the solutions are not great. To take one of your own examples, the photo of the girl with a Foveon...I thought that photo was crisply sharp. It was aliased in a couple places, however it where aliasing occurred, it did not look any significantly worse than the kind of aliasing you get with the D800 in similar circumstances. A photo of a bird with moire, or a photo of a person with moire in the fabric of their clothing, etc. are pretty horrible problems that cannot really be fixed.

Aliasing cannot "be fixed", moire or not (it is a theorem). For example, the Sigma photo I posted is ruined. Who likes what is a matter of personal preference. Some like aliased images, some do not. But when you don't, you cannot "fix" them.

I'm guessing you have never used LR4's moire removal brush....

what ever you use you lose color information and resolution

Sure you do. Doesn't matter if you use an OLPF or a post-process moire removal brush. That wasn't my point, though...my point was that there ARE ways of dealing with aliasing and moire in post. It is not ideal, the results are not perfect, but neither is it impossible.

Again...depends on your goals. A D800E, or preferably something similar from Canon, would always be my choice for landscapes. I wouldn't use such a camera for birds or anything else prone to moire. I would take a 1D X any day for night sky photography, high speed action where I can get close, etc. I'd probably take a 5D III for everything else. It all depends, man.

Aliasing cannot "be fixed", moire or not (it is a theorem). For example, the Sigma photo I posted is ruined. Who likes what is a matter of personal preference. Some like aliased images, some do not. But when you don't, you cannot "fix" them.

True, however aliasing in all its forms is not always a severe issue. Color moire, on the other hand, and moire in general, is a pretty severe problem with no real easy post-processing solution outside of manual correction on a per-instance basis...and even then, the solutions are not great. To take one of your own examples, the photo of the girl with a Foveon...I thought that photo was crisply sharp. It was aliased in a couple places, however it where aliasing occurred, it did not look any significantly worse than the kind of aliasing you get with the D800 in similar circumstances. A photo of a bird with moire, or a photo of a person with moire in the fabric of their clothing, etc. are pretty horrible problems that cannot really be fixed.

Aliasing cannot "be fixed", moire or not (it is a theorem). For example, the Sigma photo I posted is ruined. Who likes what is a matter of personal preference. Some like aliased images, some do not. But when you don't, you cannot "fix" them.

I'm guessing you have never used LR4's moire removal brush....

Fix this:

You can blur it but you cannot restore anything close to a properly sampled image.

Aliasing cannot "be fixed", moire or not (it is a theorem). For example, the Sigma photo I posted is ruined. Who likes what is a matter of personal preference. Some like aliased images, some do not. But when you don't, you cannot "fix" them.

I beg your pardon? I could give you advice on various techniques to improve the image, but what an attitude. Besides, you should remove the biggest issues first, that image has been heavily processed and that processing has almost certainly made the problem much worse and as a small jpeg much information needed to work with has been thrown away.

@tnargs: not pickle peepin at all, mate. as it is clear that less megapickels are crucial for high ISO IQ. look at my flickr and you know what I mean. That's among others a certain factor which puts the 1Dx above the 5DIII in high ISO IQ.

O please start to study the subject, less pixel are not good for anything, you are spreading a MYTHmore pixels are newer wrong, it is only a good thing

and regarding 1dx and 5dmk3, its more about the gain stage

The gain used is determined by the bit depth and native full well capacity of the pixel. The 1D X, quite literally and factually, has a higher FWC of around 90,000e- BECAUSE it has large pixels. If you compare an 18mp APS-C with the 18mp FF 1D X sensor, for identically framed shots (or to use Pi's very accurate term, "equivalent" shots), the 1D X will trounce the 18mp APS-C sensor. Doesn't matter who makes it, on an equivalent basis, for identical detail, the 1D X will have several stops less noise.

Conversely, in a focal length limited scenario, the APS-C will indeed capture more detail than the 1D X. At identical subject distances, crop the 1D X and downscale the APS-C to the same image dimensions, and the APS-C will have more, sharper detail. One could also use a higher resolution FF sensor and crop to achieve reach. All of these are different usage scenarios.

So it is not a myth. It depends on what your goals are. In reach-limited scenarios, higher pixel density is definitely important. One could also use a high density FF sensor and downscale it to the same image dimensions as the 1D X, and get sharper results with less noise (although not necessarily as low as the 1D X). It all depends on your goals, though. If you need to print large, it is unlikely you are going to downscale your FF image such that it has the same noise as the 1D X...so the argument that a high resolution sensor is no different than a low resolution sensor is just as much a "myth".

True, however aliasing in all its forms is not always a severe issue. Color moire, on the other hand, and moire in general, is a pretty severe problem with no real easy post-processing solution outside of manual correction on a per-instance basis...and even then, the solutions are not great. To take one of your own examples, the photo of the girl with a Foveon...I thought that photo was crisply sharp. It was aliased in a couple places, however it where aliasing occurred, it did not look any significantly worse than the kind of aliasing you get with the D800 in similar circumstances. A photo of a bird with moire, or a photo of a person with moire in the fabric of their clothing, etc. are pretty horrible problems that cannot really be fixed.

Aliasing cannot "be fixed", moire or not (it is a theorem). For example, the Sigma photo I posted is ruined. Who likes what is a matter of personal preference. Some like aliased images, some do not. But when you don't, you cannot "fix" them.

I'm guessing you have never used LR4's moire removal brush....

what ever you use you lose color information and resolution

Sure you do. Doesn't matter if you use an OLPF or a post-process moire removal brush. That wasn't my point, though...my point was that there ARE ways of dealing with aliasing and moire in post. It is not ideal, the results are not perfect, but neither is it impossible.

Again...depends on your goals. A D800E, or preferably something similar from Canon, would always be my choice for landscapes. I wouldn't use such a camera for birds or anything else prone to moire. I would take a 1D X any day for night sky photography, high speed action where I can get close, etc. I'd probably take a 5D III for everything else. It all depends, man.

HMMM long text again from you JristaNOPE FWC has nothing to do with results at high iso (FWC has only a meaning at base iso and DR, large FWC can also be contra productive, but that is another discussion)

NopeThe 5dmk3 has higher QE than 1dx 49% compared to 47%, the 5dmk3 has also higher resolutionQE is what counts when we are discussing high iso results and comparing 5dmk3 and 1dx, among many other factors as raw handling, electronic, read-out noise etc etc so there are no misconceptions

soIn plain words, the 5dmk3 sensor are superior to 1dx sensor regarding QE and resolution but it would be tough nut to crack for Canon to produce 1DX with 21MP and the number of frames / sec as now in 1dx

Q.E. is the ratio of photon strikes to electrons released. In other words, it could be considered the rate of conversion of photons to electronic charge. A higher rate does allow a lower gain...but you really need a much higher rate for it to be more meaningful than much larger pixel area. Yes, Q.E. does matter, but the amount of charge that can be held, at ANY ISO (since ISO is really just reducing maximum charge by a factor of two each stop), is fundamentally dependent upon the total surface area of each pixel.

According to sensorgen, at ISO 6400 the 1D X has a saturation charge of 1516e-, vs. the 5D III's 1079e-. That means the 1D X, DESPITE its lower Q.E., is quite literally more sensitive to light than the 5D III. As a matter of fact, it is approximately 40% more efficient. That clearly indicates that the difference in pixel area is a more important factor than a 2% difference in Q.E. You can't forget about the CFA strength either. Both the 1D X and 5D III employ a "weaker" CFA, which also has the effect of increasing sensitivity at high ISO.

Quibbling about a 2% difference in Q.E. is largely meaningless when you actually run the numbers. When the difference in Q.E. is 10%, 20%, 35%, then we can debate the merits of a higher Q.E. in a sensor with smaller pixels.

An interesting article on gain, Q.E., pixel area and ISO can be found at Roger Clark's site here. Roger created the concept of "Unity Gain" as a way to compare the real-world sensitivity of cameras by factoring Q.E., pixel area and CFA transmission together, as all three affect real-world sensitivity to light.